that had reasonable grounds to believe that a person had engaged in discrimination contrary to the Act could file a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, which operated on an independent basis although its member6 were The Commission served as an initial appointed by the Government. investigation, conciliation and clarification mechanism to which the parties Once the Commission decided to were given an opportunity to make submissions. the Chairman of the Human Right6 refer a case to a Human Rights Tribunal, Tribunal Panel selected the members of the tribunal that was to hear the case. The Panels were selected on a case-by-case basis and were independent of the The Human Right6 Tribunal Human Right6 Commission and the Government. adjudicated the complaint of discrimination according to a procedure similar although its rule6 were more informal. In practice, the to that of a court, Commission on Human Rights usually carried the case of the complainant and made representations on his behalf before the Human Rights Tribunal. Tribunal orders could be registered in the Federal Court of Canada and were then Decisions of the Commission not to refer a case enforceable as a court order. to a Tribunal could be appealed against and were subject to judicial review again in the Federal Court of Appeal. 53. Referring to questions relating to the status of the Covenant in domestic law, the representative said that each level of Government acting pursuant to its legislative authority was supreme, subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the case of any conflict in the area of implementation of the Covenant between the federal and provincial legislative power, the federal legislation would prevail. In Canada, international obligations and treaties that might affect private rights and obligations were not self-executing but required domestic legislation in order to be given effect. Each level of Government had therefore to act to ensure the full implementation of all the rights guaranteed by the Covenant in order for those rights to have effect at the domestic level. When Canada ratified the Covenant, it reviewed its human rights legislation to ensure that it complied with it. In addition, a committee of federal, provincial and territorial officials met twice a year in order to supervise the implementation of Canada’6 obligation6 under the Covenant. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedom6 and the Bill of Rights did not guarantee all the rights enshrined in the Covenant because the relevant legislative processes were complicated and 6 number of political and linguistic compromises had had to be made. 54. Responding to other questions, he stated that limitations to the rights enshrined in the Charter were permissible if their objective was important enough to justify interference with an individual’6 rights and freedom and if the mean6 used to achieve that objective did not have an unnecessarily harsh effect on the individual. Section 52 of the Charter of Right6 and Freedom6 of the Province of Quebec was currently being contested in the courts, While the Human Bights Act no longer applied to the Yukon, since the territory had adopted its own human right6 code and arranged for people to refer complaint6 for decision in the territory, it continued to apply in the Northwest Territories. 55. Responding to questions raised in connection with views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, the representative explained that after the Committee had decided, in the Lovelace case, that the provisions of the Indian Act were discriminatory and in conflict with article 21 of the Covenant, the Government had amended the Act to provide for the reinstatement -13-